Marxists view the family as a tool of capitalism. They believe its primary functions are to reproduce the workforce, pass down private property (maintaining class inequality), and act as a unit of consumption to support the capitalist economy.
Marxismis a structural conflict perspective in sociology. This means that Marxists see society as being structured along class lines.
Institutions generally work in the interests of the small, elite bourgeoisie class who have economic power or those of the much larger working class, or proletariat.
Key Takeaways
An illustration of a big happy family standing together in a group
Marxist Functions of The Nuclear Family
An isolated nuclear family means that men can confirm whether a child belongs to them and ensure that wealth remains in the family through private inheritance.
In Engels view, the monogamous nuclear family emerged with capitalism. Before capitalism, traditional and tribal societies were classless and did not have private property. Instead, property was collectively owned, and this was reflected in family structures.
Rather than the modern nuclear family, family tribal groups existed in groups where there were no restrictions on sexual relationships. This means that Engels believed that anyone could have sexual relations with anyone else in the tribal group, and multiple partners (Stern, 1948).
However, the emergence of capitalism, a system of private ownership, in the 18th century changed society and the family.
Thebourgeoisie, or capitalist class, used their personal wealth to invest in businesses in order to make a profit which they did not invest for the benefit of everyone else.
Eventually, the bourgeois started to look for ways of creating intergenerational wealth, rather than having it distributed among the masses of society.
The monogamous nuclear family guaranteed that people could pass on their property to their own kin, as monogamy made clear whose children were whom (Stern, 1948).
Ultimately, however, this arrangement served to reproduce inequality. As the children of the rich grew into wealth, the children of the poor remained poor. Thus, the nuclear family served to benefit the bourgeois more than the proletariat.
The cushioning effect is similar to Parson’s theory of the Warm Bath, in that the family acts as a relief from social stress and tension.
However, Zaretsky believed that the family allowed the breadwinner man to feel in control and strong, which they did not feel at work due to the oppression of the bourgeoisie capitalist class. Therefore, the family maintains capitalism because it prevents the proletariat from acknowledging its oppression and starting a revolution.
In Zaretsky’s view, the family works in the interests of capitalism. Writing from the Marxist perspective, the sociologist Zaretsky developed the view that modern capitalist society created an illusion that the “private life” of the family is separate from the economy.
Zaretsky believed that the family was a prop to the capitalist economy. For example, the capitalist system depends on the unpaid labor of mothers who reproduce, feed, and clothe future generations of workers.
For Zaretsky, the family could only serve as a way of providing psychological support for its members when there is an end to capitalism (Tilly, 1978).;
In Zaretsky’s view, the family also serves as a vital unit of consumption. Not only do capitalists and business owners want to keep workers” wages low to make a profit, but they also must be able to sell the worker’s goods.
To sell the workers” goods, however, they must create demands for their products. The family structure builds demand for goods in several ways.
Real needs, for example, are basic material things such as food, shelter, clothing, transportation, health, education, and general welfare.
False needs, meanwhile, arise due to the demands of the capitalist system rather than the real needs of individuals. These can include things that make life in a capitalist system bearable, such as things that fulfill a need for distraction.
Additionally, false needs can encompass anything people may buy to give a sense of social status, or something that people buy or do to give themselves or their children an advantage in an artificially unequal world.
Purchases parents make to quit their children and give them time to manage their lives in situations where parents do not have enough time at home due to their obligation to work in the capitalist system. This could include toys, tablets, and subscriptions to entertainment.
Purchases parents make too advantageous for their children educationally. Marxism contends that education reproduces class inequality because the middle classes can buy their children a better education. For example, tutoring or preparatory schools could widen inequality.
Purchases parents make to give their family a sense of status to outsiders. This could be for the whole family — sick as a new car — or parents giving their children high-status clothes or electronics.
Products bought to keep children “Safe,”
For example, the latest phone will become obsolete, or even nonfunctional, a few years after it is purchased and clothing tends to go frequently in and out of fashion.
There are two additional main factors that drive the family as a unit of consumption in the view of contemporary Marxists (Delphy, 1980):
Media and companies target children through advertising. These children can then persuade their parents to buy more expensive items.
Althusser argues that the family, as part of the superstructure of capitalist society, socializes children intonorms and valuesthat are useful to the capitalist ruling class. That is to say, the family is an ideological agent, a puppet, of the ruling class.For example, children learn obedience and respect for those in authority within the family.This means that the capitalist class can later exploit these children because, when these children become adults, they are more likely to view the power and authority of the capitalist class as natural.By socializing children into ruling-class values, the family ensures that children will become uncritical and conformist adults and passive workers who accept exploitation with little complaint.
Althusser argues that the family, as part of the superstructure of capitalist society, socializes children intonorms and valuesthat are useful to the capitalist ruling class. That is to say, the family is an ideological agent, a puppet, of the ruling class.
For example, children learn obedience and respect for those in authority within the family.
This means that the capitalist class can later exploit these children because, when these children become adults, they are more likely to view the power and authority of the capitalist class as natural.
By socializing children into ruling-class values, the family ensures that children will become uncritical and conformist adults and passive workers who accept exploitation with little complaint.
Marxist vs. Functionalist Views of the Family
Marxism and Functionalism are both macro or structural theories.
This means that they are both interested in how the family contributes to the running of society, rather than how individuals experience family life on a daily basis.
Criticisms
Interactionists, meanwhile, are critical of Marxism because they believe that Marxists ignore the meanings families have for individuals (Brown, 2012).
Scholars have also argued that Marxism presents people with an oversocialized view of humans, seeing socialization as a one-way process where children are imbued with capitalist culture. This does not consider the possibility that proletariat parents and children may actively resist this process (Thompson, 2014).
Additionally, the Marxist view of the family has been criticized for its over-focus on the negative aspects of the family while ignoring the satisfaction it gives people.
For example, the positive experience of being a housewife and mother is dismissed as capitalist ideology and false consciousness regardless of how real these feelings are for the individuals involved.
Resultantly, a small percentage of women are housewives. The last hundred years have also ushered in a diversity of family forms, such as dual-career families, single-person households, same-sex couples, polyamorous groups, and so on.
These alternative conceptions of the family are outside of the Marxist analysis of thenuclear family(Thompson, 2014).
References
Althusser, L. (1969). For Marx (B. Brewster, Trans.). London: Penguin Press. (Original work published 1965)
Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and philosophy and other essays (B. Brewster, Trans.). London: New Left. (Original work published 1970)
Althusser, L., & Balibar, E. (1970). Reading Capital (B. Brewster, Trans.). London: New Left. (Original work published 1968) Brown, H. (2012).Marx on gender and the family: A critical study(Vol. 39). Brill.
Delphy, C. (1980). Sharing the same table: consumption and the family.The Sociological Review, 28(1_suppl), 214-231.
Johnson, D. P. (2008).Contemporary sociological theory. An Integrated Multi-Level Approach. Texas: Springer.
Stern, B. J. (1948). Engels on the Family.Science & Society, 42-64.
Tilly, L. A. (1978).The family and change.
Thompson, K. (2014).The Marxist Perspective on The Family.
Zaretsky, N. (2010).No direction home: The American family and the fear of national decline, 1968-1980. Univ of North Carolina Press.
Saul McLeod, PhD
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education
Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.
Charlotte NickersonResearch Assistant at Harvard UniversityUndergraduate at Harvard UniversityCharlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.
Charlotte NickersonResearch Assistant at Harvard UniversityUndergraduate at Harvard University
Charlotte Nickerson
Research Assistant at Harvard University
Undergraduate at Harvard University
Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.
